Lisser, M. v. Polis, R.
1976 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Parties executed a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) on June 1, 1992; decree incorporated the PSA and it survived the divorce decree.
- PSA obligated Father to pay six years of alimony ($4,000/month), child support ($4,000/month), an unallocated $2,000/month for 50 months, various child-related expenses (healthcare, unreimbursed medical, camp, synagogue, college), and to maintain life insurance; a $100,000 lump-sum obligation also appeared in the PSA.
- A March 1, 1996 stipulation/order directed DRO to collect $10,000/month (alimony + child support + unallocated) and specified other PSA obligations remained unaffected; arrears were calculated from June 1, 1992.
- On May 6, 2002 the court set Father’s arrearages at $600,000 and entered an order directing payment; Father later paid amounts under that order and reduced the balance.
- Disputes arose over whether the $600,000 included non-baseline PSA obligations (college, camp, synagogue, unreimbursed medical, life insurance). DRO and the trial court concluded the $600,000 tracked only the obligations fixed by the March 1996 stipulation (paragraphs covering alimony, baseline child support, and the $100,000 item), and that the remaining unpaid obligations were alimony-related.
- Trial court found Father not in contempt (reasonable mistake), ordered him to pay $143,350.74 for the identified child-related expenses, required life insurance to cover remaining alimony arrears (~$158,000), and directed DRO adjustments and application of payments to alimony arrears.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 4-year statute of limitations bars Mother’s claims for various PSA obligations | Claims arise from continuing contractual obligations; statute of limitations does not bar ongoing duties | Statute of limitations (four years) bars older claims | Court: PSA is a continuing contract (no fixed deadlines/amounts for many obligations); SOL defense rejected except as to one Paragraph 10 timing item previously resolved in Father’s favor |
| Whether the $600,000 May 6, 2002 arrearage included college, camp, synagogue, unreimbursed medical, and life insurance obligations | $600,000 did not include those additional obligations; those remained separate PSA obligations | The $600,000 encompassed all obligations through May 6, 2002, so Father had already paid them | Court: $600,000 corresponds to obligations from March 1996 stipulation (alimony, baseline child support, $100,000); it did not include college, camp, synagogue, unreimbursed medical, or life insurance |
| Admissibility of Father’s testimony recounting attorneys’ discussion that $600,000 included all claims (hearsay) | Mother: such testimony is inadmissible hearsay and properly excluded | Father: testimony shows parties/attorneys agreed $600,000 covered all obligations and should be considered | Court: trial court acted within discretion in excluding the testimony as hearsay (sua sponte exclusion permissible) |
| Whether estrangement or lack of parental involvement defeats Father’s contractual college obligation | Mother: contract obligates Father to pay college regardless of estrangement | Father: estrangement/forfeiture should relieve him of college obligation | Court: estrangement is not a defense to a contractually agreed college obligation; obligation enforceable per the PSA |
Key Cases Cited
- Tuthill v. Tuthill, 763 A.2d 417 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard of review for interpretation of marital settlement agreements)
- In re Deed of Trust of Rose Hill Cemetery Ass'n Dated Jan. 14, 1960, 590 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1991) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Stamerro v. Stamerro, 889 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2005) (contract interpretation is a question of law)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 989 A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. 2010) (admissibility of evidence and abuse of discretion standard)
- In re R.T., 778 A.2d 670 (Pa. Super. 2001) (trial court may preclude hearsay testimony sua sponte)
- Crispo v. Crispo, 909 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 2006) (postnuptial/property settlement agreements may be continuing contracts)
- Miller v. Miller, 983 A.2d 736 (Pa. Super. 2009) (continuing-contract analysis for obligations without fixed deadlines or amounts)
- Fina v. Fina, 737 A.2d 760 (Pa. Super. 1999) (statute of limitations discussed in context of PSA obligations)
- Reif v. Reif, 626 A.2d 169 (Pa. Super. 1993) (contractual obligation to pay post-majority educational expenses enforceable)
- Trunkwalter v. Trunkwalter, 617 A.2d 1308 (Pa. Super. 1992) (estrangement is not a defense to a contractual college obligation)
- Cook v. Covey, 609 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 1992) (conditions affecting college support should be spelled out in agreement)
- Guadagnino v. Montie, 646 A.2d 1257 (Pa. Super. 1994) (standard for reviewing contempt findings)
- Holderman v. Hagner, 760 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2000) (abuse of discretion standards in family law matters)
- Woods v. Cicierski, 937 A.2d 1103 (Pa. Super. 2007) (credibility findings are for the factfinder)
- Gaster v. Gaster, 703 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 1997) (appealability of contempt orders discussed)